The latest cinematic rendition of Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" is a compelling and artistically rich adaptation that both honors and reinterprets the classic novel. Differing from the beloved 2005 series starring Oleg Basilashvili, this new version presents a fresh perspective on the timeless story, offering a unique visual and narrative experience.

At its core, the film remains faithful to Bulgakov's narrative, weaving the parallel tales of the Master, a writer persecuted for his work, Margarita, his devoted lover, and the fantastical events surrounding the devil's visit to Moscow. However, the director's approach infuses the story with a distinct contemporary flair, setting it apart from previous adaptations.

Visually, the film is a feast for the eyes, combining stunning cinematography with imaginative special effects that bring the mystical elements of the story to life. The portrayal of Woland's entourage is particularly noteworthy, capturing their eerie and whimsical nature.

The performances are exceptional, with each actor bringing depth and nuance to their characters. The chemistry between the Master and Margarita is palpable, adding an emotional weight to their tragic romance.

The film's pacing and tone do justice to Bulgakov's complex narrative, balancing the dark, satirical elements with moments of profound emotion. The modern touch to the story's presentation may divide traditionalists but is sure to captivate a new generation of viewers.

In conclusion, this new adaptation of "Master and Margarita" is a daring and visually stunning film that breathes new life into Bulgakov's masterpiece. It is a must-watch for fans of the novel and for those seeking a thought-provoking and beautifully crafted cinematic experience.

Mikhail Bulgakov's novel 'The Master and Margarita' was written between 1928 and 1940, but the writer never saw it published. The first - censored - version of the book appeared in the USSR in 1966. I guess this is the version that was translated into Romanian that I read in the late 60s. I have seen several more theatrical and cinematographic versions in the years that followed. It can be said that every generation since had its version of 'The Master and Margarita'. Mikhail Bulgakov created a complex and profound literary masterpiece, still relevant as long as individual freedom in general and the creative freedom of artists in particular is questioned under different political systems. The film directed by Michael Lockshin, an artist who lives in two cultures - Russian and American - was shot about 3-4 years ago, and its release was delayed after the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Filmed in Russia and acted mostly with Russian actors, the film was released only at the beginning of 2024 and is enjoying success with audiences in Russia. The controversies surrounding the script and production seem to echo what happened to the novel that inspired the screenplay in a complex of situations where life imitated the book (and the film). This 'The Master and Margarita' has a chance to become the major film version of the period we live in.

The screenplay is a rather loose adaptation of the novel, which has three narrative planes: the fate in the Soviet Moscow of a writer who is in constant struggle with censorship and in love with Margareta, a married woman; the appearance in Moscow of Professor Woland, a magician who may be an incarnation of the Devil and who dialogues with the atheist citizens of the new Soviet Union; and the evocation of the New Testament episode in which Pontius Pilate confronts Jesus and seals his condemnation. The biblical narrative plan is almost completely neglected. The focus is on the story of the Master, who is a playwright whose play about Pilate is taken off the stage due to its 'un-Soviet' theme. Events related to Bulgakov's biography itself are added. The writer is criticized in a public meeting and then expelled from the Writers' Union. When he decides to express his sufferings in the only way he knows - by writing a novel - he meets Margarita. Woland makes his appearance only about 40 minutes in the movie and becomes kind of a protector of the writer, the hero of his book and a witness to the love story between him and Margarita. The relationship between the two can only end tragically. Creators who have the courage to tell the truth are the fools of any age, and those considered fools in a dictatorial system like the Soviet one are sent to forced treatments. Lucidity among madmen is neighbor to death. The last part of the film is dominated by the story of Woland, leading to the destruction of yet another empire. He and all his companions witnessed yet another episode of the grandeur and folly of mankind.

'The Master and Margarita' is a complex work, with multiple layers and meanings. Michael Lockshin and his team found cinematic equivalents for many of the novel's narrative threads and added some nuance and development to ideas that, if present, are not central to the book. Visually, the film is formidable. The director created together with the designer Denis Lischenko and the director of cinematography Maxim Zhukov filmed a vision of Moscow where the mess of everyday existence is combined with the grandiose constructions of the communist era. It is not the Moscow of a hundred years ago, but rather the city of the future, as Stalin dreamed of the future, in the making. I believe that the trio of actors in the main roles are exceptional. Evgeniy Tsyganov makes in his character a synthesis of Bulgakov and many other writers, poets, artists whose voices were censored and strangled during the period of Soviet terror and who nevertheless did not give up their creation, often at the cost of their health or life. The love story with Margareta is believable and crosses the screen thanks to Yulia Snigir's beauty and talent. Finally, the German actor August Diehl is an excellent choice for the role of Woland, the character with magical and evil powers who dominates the second part of the film. Michael Lockshin's 'The Master and Margarita' also has some flaws in my opinion - an excessive and unnecessary verbosity considering the expressive force of the images and its screening duration. Here again, as in many other contemporary films, I don't think that exceeding the 120 minute limit added anything good to the viewers' experience. However, this screen version of Bulgakov's book is probably the best yet produced. I hope that international distribution will overcome all kinds of barriers, because this film deserves to be appreciated by its contemporaries, just as I believe it will be appreciated in the future.